Just came across this and wondered what others thought. I personally think it is way off base and no school guarantees you will get a job. I don't quite know how deceptive the tactics were, but I do see schools reporting 90% employment when I know that can't be right. However, I don't think any other form of education even reports a percentage of employments. I would imagine undergrad employment is far worse than law school employment, because I doubt employers are heavily recruiting liberal arts majors.

It could be considered somewhat misleading, but I also think it is advertising and if your smart enough to get into a law school you should know these numbers don't guarantee you a job. I don't doubt there are other opinions on the subject just wanted to see what others thought.

Depends on the level of the discrepancy and of course the intent of the school. Appalachian, for example, has the intent to pump money into a rural community via student loans not train and supply lawyers to any specific community (the school is in the middle of no where). I don't think they are named in the suit, but they are the best example of "bad intent" I can think of (even over online schools) and admit to an employment rate of less than %50. But do students who go there have any idea of what they are getting into with debt and job possibilities? Are there still grads from 2005 who still don't have a job? Is the school being abusive to get money?

Doesn't the emerging "business" of education scare you? LMU was denied approval, as most suspected it would be. Their argument about the ABA trying to slow the influx of new law grads is a good one (they were actually more clever, to avoid the connection I made, but they still won't get approved), probably correct and the best argument for the school to not get approval.

What surprised me is that some of the schools named in the suit aren't that bad: Jefferson? Really? Baltimore? Huh? Kent? What? These schools are fine, not tier 1, but fine.

I suspect I'm in the minority, even entertaining the legitimacy of this suit a smidgin. The proliferation of law schools is a problem, driven by "easy money" and ultimately detrimental to the legal community as a whole. However, I do not think it will go anywhere, the school's can't settle, for obvious reasons, and the plaintiffs arguments are hard to swallow.

sollicitus

Do I think they should be allowed to sue? Up to the Judge overseeing the case. If it is frivolous they and the attorneys representing them can be sanctioned and punished.

My personal thoughts, take the bitter with the sweet. They chose (for whatever reason) to go where they went. Perhaps no one else would take them, perhaps a scholarship, maybe geographical convenience. Either way, unless the school 100% lied to them and promised them a job (and even Baker won't do that) then I'd say the case has about as much of a chance of winning as if people sued the lottery for not winning.